In an 'article' in the Daily Mail (Britain's printed equivalent of Nick Griffin), Melanie Phillips essentially reveals her views. To me it sounds like: "I don't have anything against gays, unless I have to acknowledge that they are human beings".
It includes the line "The bed and breakfast hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull — who were recently sued for turning away two homosexuals who wished to share a bedroom — were but the latest religious believers to fall foul of the gay inquisition merely for upholding Christian values." Hmm... 'Upholding Christian values', eh? Would Phillips be so keen to defend them if Peter and Hazelmary Bull were in court for murdering a couple who they found out were adulterers? After all, the Bible says "If a man shall be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die" [Deuteronomy 22:22, Webster's Bible Translation].
While she might well argue that those parts of the Bible 'don't apply any more, because the new testament rescinded Mosaic law', the same revocation applies to the passages in the Bible which condemn homosexuality. You can't have your shellfish and eat it, Melanie... (Want more about abominations? Read this Amusing Letter). Would Ms Phillips defend people who were 'merely upholding Muslim values'? Certain Muslim countries (seven of them, in fact) condone the death penalty for homosexuality, but I insist to you that equality of people is universal, and should not in any circumstances take precedence over human rights.
Here's the thing Ms Phillips - society is taking a stand against the ridiculously bigoted views of religion, and telling people that they simply aren't acceptable. People (especially religious people) have long ignored the parts of their holy books which tell them to do things which are no longer acceptable in society (see the abominations above). We pick and choose our own morals, predominantly based on the times we live in, and our own experiences. Religions have lots of good parts - but so do atheists. The good comes from the person, and not the religion.
At the end, Phillips does raise the issue of free speech (one of few things that we all agree on, so safe ground to imply that a pro-gay initiative is bad because it's anti-free speech); this is not entirely without merit. I think there is a balance to be struck. Phillips should be allowed to air her ridiculous views, just as I should be allowed to air mine. She is free to argue that homosexuality is wrong, and I am free to argue that homosexuality is NOT wrong, and discrimination IS. However - I should not have the right to impose my beliefs upon her, and she should be free from the negative consequences of my actions. The reverse is true, and Christians should treat all people as equals - like their brothers, perhaps. I wonder why that sounds familiar.
Free speech as an individual - but not without the consequences. That's the line that needs to be drawn. Free speech is the freedom to say what you like without being imprisoned or otherwise sanctioned by the government and its agencies. It's not the freedom to say what you like and have everyone else (especially your employer) put up with it. It's certainly not the freedom to treat people like crap because you don't like their life-choices.
Phillips continues: "Penalising religious people for speaking and acting in accordance with their beliefs is neither liberal nor tolerant. It is behaviour more commonly associated with totalitarian dictatorships". What if it's someone's belief that all Christians should be wiped out? How do square that with your totalitarian analogy? Clearly you believe that Christians have a God-given right to hang around, discriminating against whoever God tells them to. In fact, Melanie Phillips couldn't be more wrong: penalising people for speaking and acting in accordance with their beliefs (when they harm others) is called the law, and it applies to religious people the same as anybody else.
Unless, of course, you want to claim that religious people deserve an exception because of the nature of their beliefs. I can live with that. If you believe that there's a person who listens to your thoughts, and who is going to punish you if you don't do what he says, then I can accept that you're insane, and you need to be in an asylum, not a prison. Your choice.
Unless, of course, you want to claim that religious people deserve an exception because of the nature of their beliefs. I can live with that. If you believe that there's a person who listens to your thoughts, and who is going to punish you if you don't do what he says, then I can accept that you're insane, and you need to be in an asylum, not a prison. Your choice.
At the end, Phillips does raise the issue of free speech (one of few things that we all agree on, so safe ground to imply that a pro-gay initiative is bad because it's anti-free speech); this is not entirely without merit. I think there is a balance to be struck. Phillips should be allowed to air her ridiculous views, just as I should be allowed to air mine. She is free to argue that homosexuality is wrong, and I am free to argue that homosexuality is NOT wrong, and discrimination IS. However - I should not have the right to impose my beliefs upon her, and she should be free from the negative consequences of my actions. The reverse is true, and Christians should treat all people as equals - like their brothers, perhaps. I wonder why that sounds familiar.
Free speech as an individual - but not without the consequences. That's the line that needs to be drawn. Free speech is the freedom to say what you like without being imprisoned or otherwise sanctioned by the government and its agencies. It's not the freedom to say what you like and have everyone else (especially your employer) put up with it. It's certainly not the freedom to treat people like crap because you don't like their life-choices.
No comments:
Post a Comment